Lol, yep, you answered the question for yourself right in your own Copy Pasta. All you need to know about that survey is "Global Strategy Group" to know that it's biased and not worth the bits used to put it on the internet.

Meanwhile, the Soros dots are connected by millions of traceable dollars and 20% of the DAs in this country being directly beholden to him. And we see the results in the crime rates in our cities.

https://www.policedefense.org/wp-content...report.pdf

A. You waive off a poll because of a source even thought the demo information staring you in the face says it was spread amongst a matched sample of the voter population 
OK - your choice - I bet it's a pretty accurate assessment of American's temperature on the matter

B. You seem to think that campaign contributions mean that the contributor controls the elected official. 
Taking money for a campaign does not make an official "directly beholden" to anyone. LOL - If you tried to apply that "logic" to everyone holding office, you'd very rapidly see how horribly stupid it is to make that ridiculous assumption.

A. Yes, I have no reason to believe a survey conducted by democrat party operatives no matter what they say in their justification. If the poll started "The Republican Party/Heritage Foundation/Axiom Strategies released a poll today that said..." and you thought the results unlikely you'd also discount it immediately for the same reasons. 
B. Yes, I do believe that Soros is buying these political animals for a reason and spending a ton of money to do so. We also see a pattern of behavior from his purchases resulting in the advancement of progressive politics and social unrest. Call it whatever you like, the proof is in the indictments (or frequently the lack thereof).

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

A. You waive off a poll because of a source even thought the demo information staring you in the face says it was spread amongst a matched sample of the voter population 
OK - your choice - I bet it's a pretty accurate assessment of American's temperature on the matter

B. You seem to think that campaign contributions mean that the contributor controls the elected official. 
Taking money for a campaign does not make an official "directly beholden" to anyone. LOL - If you tried to apply that "logic" to everyone holding office, you'd very rapidly see how horribly stupid it is to make that ridiculous assumption.

I don't know, I think you could argue that is why we're in the mess we're in...

Sure you can.  That's totally fair. 

I hate the big money that goes into PACs and campaigns. Always have. Always will, and I hope we see that curbed and regulated. 

But to try and pretend it is a one sided issue is naive  - and to pretend that every politician or elected official who accepts campaign contributions is now a puppet for one of their many donors is equally ludicrous. 

Unfortunately - adopting ludicrous conspiracy theory is now akin to inhaling air for many conservatives. 

The reality of this situation is that a losing presidential candidate attempted to illegally alter election results and is now being charged for doing so. 
Not difficult to justify without inventing a conspiracy. 
There is no need for it to be some conspiracy hit job from Soros backed prosecutors.
 It is simply our justice system doing its damn job. 

Why should we be surprised if the prosecutors who happened to have enough stones to charge a former president happen to oppose his party in some way or accept campaign finance from those who do? 
We shouldn't. 

We've witnessed first hand dozens and dozens of Republican figures go from opposing Trump in 2014/15 to rolling over with their tail between their legs and submitting to his movement to keep from losing their base of constituents. 
Did conservatives expect a flurry of prosecutors with conservative ties to go after him for his crimes? That doesn't jive with the reality of our divided nation at all right now. Of course it was prosecutors who don't agree with his policy even if it's their job to remain unbiased about such things in their proceedings.  We aren't going to sit around and pretend that any prosecutor anywhere doesn't have an opinion on the most divisive figure in politics, are we?

---

A. You waive off a poll because of a source even thought the demo information staring you in the face says it was spread amongst a matched sample of the voter population 
OK - your choice - I bet it's a pretty accurate assessment of American's temperature on the matter

B. You seem to think that campaign contributions mean that the contributor controls the elected official. 
Taking money for a campaign does not make an official "directly beholden" to anyone. LOL - If you tried to apply that "logic" to everyone holding office, you'd very rapidly see how horribly stupid it is to make that ridiculous assumption.

I don't know, I think you could argue that is why we're in the mess we're in...

Money has never failed to find its way to politicians and their campaigns.  If that's the reason for the mess, then we were never not in a mess, and we will never be out of one.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't know, I think you could argue that is why we're in the mess we're in...

Money has never failed to find its way to politicians and their campaigns.  If that's the reason for the mess, then we were never not in a mess, and we will never be out of one.

It's really simple.

It costs a lot of money to run a successful campaign of deceitful propaganda. 
In that regard - yes - we've always been in a mess. 

I am in favor of making it harder for candidates to achieve misleading the American public through disinformation. 
You are fine with it, apparently.

---

Money has never failed to find its way to politicians and their campaigns.  If that's the reason for the mess, then we were never not in a mess, and we will never be out of one.

It's really simple.

It costs a lot of money to run a successful campaign of deceitful propaganda. 
In that regard - yes - we've always been in a mess. 

I am in favor of making it harder for candidates to achieve misleading the American public through disinformation. 
You are fine with it, apparently.

I am aware that campaigning is very expensive.  
But it's just as expensive to run a very honest, very positive campaign as it is to run a very deceitful very negative one.  The best case scenario is we have two candidates who are being as positive and honest as possible, but, if one fails to raise and spend enough money to get enough name recognition and credibility, that candidate will lose.

That said, I do believe we can slow down and reduce the flow of money to candidates.  It's not a bad idea to have spending limits and disclosure requirements.  But attempts to go beyond that probably will be unenforceable. And it will never be the magic bullet to clean things up, so to speak.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Pathetic he says.... lol. You know this is selective enforcement of the law. You know these dates set for his trials aren't coincidental. You celebrate them. You just don't care because you don't like Trump. Likewise, you cite partisan DA's like they are entirely forthright and credible. This indictment is one sided, and again, does not PROVE he was lying or trying to defraud the United States. Only that he is not in agreement with his advisors and other election officials. It even acknowledges he has the right to say these things. 

Stacey Abrams did this for YEARS and was never indicted. She claimed the vote was suppressed despite record turnout (even among blacks). This type of dispute has NEVER been uncommon. The veracity with which Trump fought back was uncommon, sure, as was the veracity with which the media and establishment came down on him for doing so. Not only that, you act like he only received advice from one group of people, because that's how the indictment was framed. He received multiple conflicting reports, which is why he's even got co-conspirators in the first place. He had lawyers making alternate recommendations. He did not trust the election officials in the swing states, OBVIOUSLY, and he thought that many people in his own cabinet were corrupt, which is prototypical behavior of a narcissist. No matter how you want to read that indictment, which I have read, none of it is PROOF. It's open to interpretation. You just want to interpret a certain way because you're close-minded. I know you want to believe you're above it, but you're not. 

The charges in GA are serious, but specious. The charges in Florida are the worst for Trump. The charges in NY are garbage. The point is, you don't have PROOF of [BLEEP]. It's just more TDS. Can he get convicted? Probably. It will be a judgement call. It won't be because of proof.

"Selective enforcement of the law"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's cute. 

Law broken
Crime charged.

It is just hilarious how every time something is simple and black and white, you feel the need to twist it into a pretzel and assign it a special little fictional term or word. 
Good luck with that. 

I must have asked you a hundred times not to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. 
Don't ever presume to tell me what I "know" - especially when it's followed by some horse [BLEEP] you've decided to believe because of your own paranoia. 

These dates need to be expedient so that the American people are not subject to another of this clown's criminal power grab attempts. Couldn't be easier to sort out.  If he is indeed guilty, then expedience is paramount to protect our nation from him. Precedent exists nearly everywhere you look in the legal world for an expedient trial.

I'm wondering where all of the hate toward DAs in America was before these indictments? I sure don't remember this being a problem until orange [BLEEP] got indicted. LOL It's just more grasping at straws to protect a blatant criminal from his blatant crimes.
  Let's not act like it has to be some agenda just because some folks involved in these cases don't like Trump.
60-70% of America doesn't like Trump depending on which poll you believe. 
The odds are in favor of these DAs being anti Trump, pal.
 I know that rubs against your default setting of everything under the sun being wrapped in a shroud of mystery and guided by boogeymen controlled by a secret code word only accessed by capturing an Alex Jones fart in a mason-jar and delivering it to one of Rupert Murdoch's Vietnamese sex-slaves with a blood offering, but that is indeed the simple reality. MOST people, including many prosecutors, and, gasp!, even some judges, do not like the guy. 

WITCH HUNT!  LOL 

Criminal does crime. 
Criminal gets prosecuted.

Next...

This should tell  you everything you need to know about your bias. It's an indictment. It hasn't been tried. You don't have proof of [BLEEP], yet you smugly talk like your opinion is beyond reproach. He hasn't been tried yet. There is another half to this case. The indictment doesn't PROVE ANYTHING. It's a charge. It's manipulated. Just like that video I posted, Dems acknowledged a few years back that a good DA can bring an indictment about pretty much anything they want. You keep doing you, bro. This country is really taking a turn for the better under democratic leadership.

---

"Selective enforcement of the law"

HAHAHAHAHAHA

That's cute. 

Law broken
Crime charged.

It is just hilarious how every time something is simple and black and white, you feel the need to twist it into a pretzel and assign it a special little fictional term or word. 
Good luck with that. 

I must have asked you a hundred times not to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. 
Don't ever presume to tell me what I "know" - especially when it's followed by some horse [BLEEP] you've decided to believe because of your own paranoia. 

These dates need to be expedient so that the American people are not subject to another of this clown's criminal power grab attempts. Couldn't be easier to sort out.  If he is indeed guilty, then expedience is paramount to protect our nation from him. Precedent exists nearly everywhere you look in the legal world for an expedient trial.

I'm wondering where all of the hate toward DAs in America was before these indictments? I sure don't remember this being a problem until orange [BLEEP] got indicted. LOL It's just more grasping at straws to protect a blatant criminal from his blatant crimes.
  Let's not act like it has to be some agenda just because some folks involved in these cases don't like Trump.
60-70% of America doesn't like Trump depending on which poll you believe. 
The odds are in favor of these DAs being anti Trump, pal.
 I know that rubs against your default setting of everything under the sun being wrapped in a shroud of mystery and guided by boogeymen controlled by a secret code word only accessed by capturing an Alex Jones fart in a mason-jar and delivering it to one of Rupert Murdoch's Vietnamese sex-slaves with a blood offering, but that is indeed the simple reality. MOST people, including many prosecutors, and, gasp!, even some judges, do not like the guy. 

WITCH HUNT!  LOL 

Criminal does crime. 
Criminal gets prosecuted.

Next...

This should tell  you everything you need to know about your bias. It's an indictment. It hasn't been tried. You don't have proof of [BLEEP], yet you smugly talk like your opinion is beyond reproach. He hasn't been tried yet. There is another half to this case. The indictment doesn't PROVE ANYTHING. It's a charge. It's manipulated. Just like that video I posted, Dems acknowledged a few years back that a good DA can bring an indictment about pretty much anything they want. You keep doing you, bro. This country is really taking a turn for the better under democratic leadership.

I'm sorry you haven't been following the former president's case. 

Boatloads of evidence have been made public that indicate it should be quite easy for prosecutors to make most of these charges stick. I mean they were mostly already public anyway, but ...whatever. 

It kind of helps when the defendant continually opens his mouth and incriminates himself. 

I'm not sure why you want to call my ability to see my own nose in front of my face "bias." 
LOL 

Sometimes it's just really, really simple. 
The dude tried to get his own VP to recognize a blatant scam of false electoral votes and there is a paper trail, text messages, and documentation out the wazoo. It's all laid out and there are former lawyers and advisors flipping on the guy to try and limit their complicity. Why do you act like this stuff isn't "out there" for everyone with eyes to see?  

It would be a miracle if he escapes from these obvious crimes unscathed by the various courts of law he'll face.

---

The case has not been tried. Nothing you have posted is PROOF, dog. Yet, you keep saying it. It's not really simple. It's only really simple when you can't see outside your worldview.

---

You are correct in that he can't win reelection. If he runs, it's only going to further entrench democrats.

---

I believe this point is far from moot, but is, in fact, critical to the prosecution's case and necessary to prove intent.  Paranoia is not a crime, and wouldn't you agree he certainly displays symptoms?

Do you really think he's mentally ill? You would never vote for a mentally ill person would you? How would you feel if most of your neighbors were about to vote for a mentally ill person?

In any case, in federal court the burden is on the defense to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.  In Georgia the burden is also on the defense to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard, but still the defense has to assert it and show the evidence.

Is a man who is running for office going to assert that he was insane while in office previously?

LOL.  I ask if he displays any symptoms of paranoia, and you jump to mentally ill and an insanity defense?  What are you envisioning, a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest scenario and putting him in a white jacket that ties in the back?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Do you really think he's mentally ill? You would never vote for a mentally ill person would you? How would you feel if most of your neighbors were about to vote for a mentally ill person?

In any case, in federal court the burden is on the defense to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.  In Georgia the burden is also on the defense to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence, which is a lower standard, but still the defense has to assert it and show the evidence.

Is a man who is running for office going to assert that he was insane while in office previously?

LOL.  I ask if he displays any symptoms of paranoia, and you jump to mentally ill and an insanity defense?  What are you envisioning, a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest scenario and putting him in a white jacket that ties in the back?

Not at all.  You're the one who suggested he was mentally ill and that this would make the prosecution unable to prove their case, so, same question,  back to you.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The case has not been tried. Nothing you have posted is PROOF, dog. Yet, you keep saying it. It's not really simple. It's only really simple when you can't see outside your worldview.

---

You are correct in that he can't win reelection. If he runs, it's only going to further entrench democrats.

Pence has openly expressed the coercion that took place - how it was presented to him - and how and why he denied it. The false electors have already been charged in one state with at least two other States poised to follow suit. There is a rather exhaustive paper trail of emails + video and audio evidence between Eastman, Cheseoro, Guliani, and others that lays bare the plan to prop up these false electors.  I'm not sure why so many folks like to pretend these actions were legal? They weren't. The clear intent was to alter the outcome of an election that all of the states falsely accused of falling prey to fraud had already investigated, vetted and certified. 

Why do you think it was legal for Trump and his associates to contrive and implement this scheme to alter the verified outcome of a presidential election? And why do you think there isn't proof of this?  It is all there - and in a few months it will be made very clear for those who still don't see their nose in front of their face for whatever reason.

---

LOL.  I ask if he displays any symptoms of paranoia, and you jump to mentally ill and an insanity defense?  What are you envisioning, a One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest scenario and putting him in a white jacket that ties in the back?

Not at all.  You're the one who suggested he was mentally ill and that this would make the prosecution unable to prove their case, so, same question,  back to you.

Not even close.  Maybe you should read it again.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Awww. All you got is your cute little insults I see. 

Pathetic. 

I see you are too lazy to read the indictment that spells this out for you. 

His own Attorney General informed him that investigations found no fraud, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency told him their investigation found no fraud. The state of Georgia informed him via three different agencies/officials including an additional investigation by GBI that there was no fraud. Two private agencies he paid millions to investigate fraud told him there was no fraud. This list goes on for a long time. 

You should just pull up your big boy britches and go read the pertinent section of the indictment:
https://www.jan-6.com/_files/ugd/2cf5f9_...6e7911.pdf

Go to the bottom of page 6 - No.11 heading - and read that plus pg 7 and 8. 

He was informed by a wide, wide scope of different federal and state officials , cabinet members, advisors, lawyers, staffers and legislators that his claims were false. 

This odd little fascination you have with some burden of proof that he "believed" them or not is moot. 

Doesn't matter. 

He was informed of the reality of his situation and opted criminality to alter it over acceptance of his loss.  

You can insult me - you can whine that it isn't that simple - you can flounder about to concoct some way that his criminal actions were justified. None of that matters. 

He lost.
He was told that he lost by a legion of credible officials.
He chose to act criminally in response.

I believe this point is far from moot, but is, in fact, critical to the prosecution's case and necessary to prove intent.  Paranoia is not a crime, and wouldn't you agree he certainly displays symptoms?

Paranoia is a mental illness.
The prosecutor only has to disprove mental illness if the defense claims mental illness.
Why did you bring this up?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The case has not been tried. Nothing you have posted is PROOF, dog. Yet, you keep saying it. It's not really simple. It's only really simple when you can't see outside your worldview.

---

You are correct in that he can't win reelection. If he runs, it's only going to further entrench democrats.

Pence has openly expressed the coercion that took place - how it was presented to him - and how and why he denied it. The false electors have already been charged in one state with at least two other States poised to follow suit. There is a rather exhaustive paper trail of emails + video and audio evidence between Eastman, Cheseoro, Guliani, and others that lays bare the plan to prop up these false electors.  I'm not sure why so many folks like to pretend these actions were legal? They weren't. The clear intent was to alter the outcome of an election that all of the states falsely accused of falling prey to fraud had already investigated, vetted and certified. 

Why do you think it was legal for Trump and his associates to contrive and implement this scheme to alter the verified outcome of a presidential election? And why do you think there isn't proof of this?  It is all there - and in a few months it will be made very clear for those who still don't see their nose in front of their face for whatever reason.

Pence will testify to the how and why of what took place.  A jury will decide if that how and why rose to the level of coercion and if other evidence "lays bare" any criminal plan.

There is a significant difference between pretending certain actions were legal and saying they have not yet been proven to be illegal.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Pence has openly expressed the coercion that took place - how it was presented to him - and how and why he denied it. The false electors have already been charged in one state with at least two other States poised to follow suit. There is a rather exhaustive paper trail of emails + video and audio evidence between Eastman, Cheseboro, Guliani, and others that lays bare the plan to prop up these false electors.  I'm not sure why so many folks like to pretend these actions were legal? They weren't. The clear intent was to alter the outcome of an election that all of the states falsely accused of falling prey to fraud had already investigated, vetted and certified. 

Why do you think it was legal for Trump and his associates to contrive and implement this scheme to alter the verified outcome of a presidential election? And why do you think there isn't proof of this?  It is all there - and in a few months it will be made very clear for those who still don't see their nose in front of their face for whatever reason.

Pence will testify to the how and why of what took place.  A jury will decide if that how and why rose to the level of coercion and if other evidence "lays bare" any criminal plan. 

There is a significant difference between pretending certain actions were legal and saying they have not yet been proven to be illegal.

Yeah, yeah I get it. 
I understand how the legal system works. 

I'm also a human with enough life experience to have seen the legal system operate for a long time.
Folks with this kind of clear evidence against them don't weasel out of it most the time. 
But they aren't usually former presidents either. 

If you guys want to continually harp on the innocent until proven guilty song and dance - go right ahead. 
Personally, I don't have the slightest issue with stating that a cursory perusal of the evidence already known to the general public in these cases makes this clown look guilty as all hell.  And it isn't going to help that most of these cases (records case in FL, federal fraud case, and the NY hush money bit) are also going to feature at least one person inside Trump's circle of trust or communication flipping on him and testifying with likely damaging information. 

You can pretend that the evidence mounting against him isn't already damning if you want to. I'm not.

---

It's really simple.

It costs a lot of money to run a successful campaign of deceitful propaganda. 
In that regard - yes - we've always been in a mess. 

I am in favor of making it harder for candidates to achieve misleading the American public through disinformation. 
You are fine with it, apparently.

I am aware that campaigning is very expensive.  
But it's just as expensive to run a very honest, very positive campaign as it is to run a very deceitful very negative one.  The best case scenario is we have two candidates who are being as positive and honest as possible, but, if one fails to raise and spend enough money to get enough name recognition and credibility, that candidate will lose.

That said, I do believe we can slow down and reduce the flow of money to candidates.  It's not a bad idea to have spending limits and disclosure requirements.  But attempts to go beyond that probably will be unenforceable. And it will never be the magic bullet to clean things up, so to speak.

I agree with both of you here, but I think we all know this goes well beyond campaign money, too.  Money is funneled to these politicians families even after they're campaign is over via "business deals" or high paying "jobs" (think Kushner and Hunter B.) and I'm sure the other side of that deal is in the form of favoritism in legislation, etc.  We all know this, and there's nothing we can do about it.

---

Pence will testify to the how and why of what took place.  A jury will decide if that how and why rose to the level of coercion and if other evidence "lays bare" any criminal plan. 

There is a significant difference between pretending certain actions were legal and saying they have not yet been proven to be illegal.

Yeah, yeah I get it. 
I understand how the legal system works. 

I'm also a human with enough life experience to have seen the legal system operate for a long time.
Folks with this kind of clear evidence against them don't weasel out of it most the time. 
But they aren't usually former presidents either. 

If you guys want to continually harp on the innocent until proven guilty song and dance - go right ahead. 
Personally, I don't have the slightest issue with stating that a cursory perusal of the evidence already known to the general public in these cases makes this clown look guilty as all hell.  And it isn't going to help that most of these cases (records case in FL, federal fraud case, and the NY hush money bit) are also going to feature at least one person inside Trump's circle of trust or communication flipping on him and testifying with likely damaging information. 

You can pretend that the evidence mounting against him isn't already damning if you want to. I'm not.

We're in uncharted territory in so many ways.  The trial of someone under SS protection, especially at the ex-President level, is unprecedented.  As this develops, I'm expecting a flurry of motions over venue, appearance, etc.


This is the critical point I've been emphasizing, much of the "proof" you believe exists is not yet of record.  These individuals represent potential evidence that could flip the decision either way.  Public statements and emails cannot be retracted, but I don't believe he will be convicted on the strength of those alone.  Testimony of private conversations is what may or may not establish criminal intent.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Yeah, yeah I get it. 
I understand how the legal system works. 

I'm also a human with enough life experience to have seen the legal system operate for a long time.
Folks with this kind of clear evidence against them don't weasel out of it most the time. 
But they aren't usually former presidents either. 

If you guys want to continually harp on the innocent until proven guilty song and dance - go right ahead. 
Personally, I don't have the slightest issue with stating that a cursory perusal of the evidence already known to the general public in these cases makes this clown look guilty as all hell.  And it isn't going to help that most of these cases (records case in FL, federal fraud case, and the NY hush money bit) are also going to feature at least one person inside Trump's circle of trust or communication flipping on him and testifying with likely damaging information. 

You can pretend that the evidence mounting against him isn't already damning if you want to. I'm not.

We're in uncharted territory in so many ways.  The trial of someone under SS protection, especially at the ex-President level, is unprecedented.  As this develops, I'm expecting a flurry of motions over venue, appearance, etc.


This is the critical point I've been emphasizing, much of the "proof" you believe exists is not yet of record.  These individuals represent potential evidence that could flip the decision either way.  Public statements and emails cannot be retracted, but I don't believe he will be convicted on the strength of those alone.  Testimony of private conversations is what may or may not establish criminal intent.

So you haven't read the Chesebro memos and the Eastman emails

OK

They lay out the illegal scheme in detail
They attempt to use context/precedent from the writings of a Harvard law professor (Tribe) who later called the citing a "misrepresentation of my scholarship."

They also tried to pull Clarence Thomas into this thing and memos/emails lay that out as well.

Trump was advised this would fail - but insisted on doing it anyway.

The facts they have in front of them as evidence are:
* The scheme was conspired, and it was illegal
*Trump urged its continuance (testimony already gathered)
*It lead too illegal/fraudulent filings on the state level and federal level
*it lead to an attempt at coercing the VP into illegal participation

Now, you all can continue to pretend that this is a special circumstance and we don't know what proof exists and all the crimes are "alleged" if you'd like.

But - it is insanely obvious that they have everything they need to hold his feet to the fire on the false electors scheme.

---

We're in uncharted territory in so many ways.  The trial of someone under SS protection, especially at the ex-President level, is unprecedented.  As this develops, I'm expecting a flurry of motions over venue, appearance, etc.


This is the critical point I've been emphasizing, much of the "proof" you believe exists is not yet of record.  These individuals represent potential evidence that could flip the decision either way.  Public statements and emails cannot be retracted, but I don't believe he will be convicted on the strength of those alone.  Testimony of private conversations is what may or may not establish criminal intent.

So you haven't read the Eastman emails

Emails from Eastman to others may implicate him, but that may not extend to Trump.  Again, testimony regarding yet unknown conversations will likely determine the outcome. 

In any event, a trial, if/when we get to that point, will be an absolute media circus.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

So you haven't read the Eastman emails

Emails from Eastman to others may implicate him, but that may not extend to Trump.  Again, testimony regarding yet unknown conversations will likely determine the outcome. 

In any event, a trial, if/when we get to that point, will be an absolute media circus.

I edited the post with more info. 

It's fine if you want to take a wait and see approach. I choose to acknowledge the evidence as it is made known.

---